Part 1 – Introduction

With this series of articles, I would like to address a certain dissatisfaction with the common debates one sees online regarding koryū, kata training and sparring or what is called “aliveness.” These are typically framed in very binary ways, something I find incongruent with both my own experience of practice, my understanding of the history of koryū in general, and Yagyū Shinkage Ryū Heihō (YSR) in specific.

  • This part will be an introduction to the argument I am addressing, the terms with which I will address it, a very general look at the history of shiai in classical Japanese martial traditions, and some of my own conclusions and speculations.
  • Part 2 will be an examination of the appearance of shiai in the early historical record of YSR. Fortunately, the historical record is relatively well-preserved, and has been printed in a number of different modern sources.
  • Part 3 will look at the modern (post-Meiji) history of shiai in YSR.
  • Finally, in Part 4, I would like to present the YSR approach to kata and free training, specifically through the lens of what we call the “shiai-seihō,” or “shiai-gata.” I’ll note that this material is adapted from private presentations I’ve made elsewhere.

I suspect that on the whole much of what I am talking about is present in other traditions, if not expressed or thought about in exactly the same terms. So, I want to stress that the ultimate goal here is not to boast about the specialness of YSR, but rather to hopefully inspire further study of these ideas in other traditions, and encourage a re-examination of commonly held assumptions.

Let’s begin by defining our terms. I’ll be using the term shiai throughout the series, mostly because that is the term used in the Japanese sources I have. What do I mean by “shiai?” Let’s first define its ostensible counterpart, kata-geiko (form training), as two-person practice utilizing certain pre-set parameters, the end result of which expresses one or a few predictable shapes. This would include very simple drills such as pad work, uchikomi-geiko in jūdō and kendō, and of course the more sophisticated kata of koryū.

Shiai is an engagement between two people with non-lethal intent, typically with semi-or full-contact, for the purpose of training or testing of skill, utilizing spontaneous expression of technique within set parameters partly or wholly outside the parameters of kata-geiko. This includes point-matches, non-point matches, jigeiko and kakarigeiko in kendō, randori in jūdō, “free practice,” and “sparring.”

I believe these can be seen as a spectrum rather than discrete items. Indeed, of the examples given above, kendō’s kakarigeiko in particular seems to straddle the line. I hope to provide another, more detailed example in Part 4.

Having defined our terms, let’s now look at the argument. The following represent ideas that I have often run into in discussions online, and even in printed material. The general argument can be summed up as this:

“Koryū didn’t spar. The masters of the old days didn’t have friendly matches; they had duels. The primary training method of koryū was kata-geiko. Later, in the mid-19th century, matches with bōgu became popular, which lead to the development of modern kendō, and Kanō developed his randori and shiai-system for modern jūdō.”

I have no desire to to rehash the old “jutsu vs. dō” discussion, but I think it is fair to say that, in general, classical schools are seen as kata-centric, conservative, and focused on either battlefield combat or dueling. Modern budō, then, is seen as shiai-centric, relatively innovative, and focused on physical and mental fitness. In terms of history, kendō and jūdō are seen as new innovations of the Meiji era, distinct from classical schools, many of which have died off. It is also generally assumed that the classical schools that remain are representative of their respective eras.

All of the above strikes me as perfectly reasonable given the information that we have had available to us. The problem, however, lies in that very last assumption, that extant classical schools are representative of their eras. It underpins everything else. But I would submit that we have a survivor bias issue. Extant classical schools, far from exemplars of Edo period and earlier ryūha, almost assuredly represent only the most conservative traditions.

It’s believed that there were some one thousand four hundred martial arts ryūha existing by the time of the Meiji Restoration. Together, the Nihon Kobudō Kyōkai and Nihon Kobudō Shinkōkai account for less than eighty. While not every extant ryūha belongs to those organizations, it’s unlikely that there also exist sixty-some other traditions needed to get us to even 10% of the number that once existed. I suspect that many, probably even most pre-Meiji kenjutsu and jūjutsu schools had a strong shiai tradition, perhaps even being shiai-centric, and that these schools eventually became subsumed into kendō and jūdō.

In my opinion, the real primary difference between classical and modern budō is not necessarily based on its approach to real combat, but rather that classical budō was proprietary, while modern budō is largely open-source. And rather than a break at an inflection point in Meiji, I think there was simply a gradual shift from the classical paradigm into the modern one. Certainly, some events accelerated this shift, particularly the modernization of Japan in the Meiji era.

The thrust of this series will be kenjutsu, but let’s take a quick look at other schools.

  • And as far as jūjutsu, you have the very obvious example of sumō as one way that the grappling arts engaged in shiai. And far as I’ve been able to determine, the randori of Kano’s jūdō was taken from Tenjin Shin’yō-ryū (founded in the 1830s).
  • In terms of sōjutsu, there’s the very obvious example of Owari Kan-ryū. It was founded in the late 17th century, before the invention of the kind of bōgu that it currently uses, so its shiai tradition may date back to the invention of bōgu as we now have it.
  • With naginata, at first glance, this seems to actually fall very much in line with the general argument. Maniwa Nen Ryū, for example, has shiai for its kenjutsu practice, but not for its naginata practice, as noted in Ellis Amdur’s Old School. However, a researcher named Maehata Hiromi has noted that some woodblock prints show wooden naginata vs practice spears, as well as short shinai fixed to naginata hafts, so perhaps there actually were shiai at one time. [1]

Even just taking a very broad view of kenjutsu history, we find the following:

  • The fukuro-shinai was invented sometime in the mid-16th century. Extant schools that use the fukuro-shinai today include Shinkage-ryū, Nen-ryū, Kashima Shintō-ryū, and Tatsumi-ryū. These are all very old schools.
  • Historically, we know that there were shiai in Shinkage-ryū and Nen-ryū. Might this not suggest a much more widespread use of shiai among bugeisha?
  • Bōgu dates back to the 18th century, in particular with Jikishinkage-ryū and Nakanishi Ittō-ryū.
  • The modern yotsuwari shinai dates back to the 19th century with Ōishi Shinkage-ryū.
  • And then you have the Three Great Dōjō of the Bakumatsu era (the Hokushin Ittō-ryū’s Genbukan of Chiba Shūsaku; Shintō Munen-ryū’s Renpeikan of Saito Yakurō; & Kyōshin Meichi-ryū’s Shigakukan of Momonoi Sunzō). Each represented a different koryū, while also being known for shiai. The All Japan Kendō Federation draws a straight line from them to modern kendō.

This is a very potted history of kendō, but I think we can already see the basic arc of kendō history stretching back centuries, interwoven with the history of koryū. I think I could go far enough to say that kendō as something distinct from koryū is, for all intents and purposes, actually a post-war idea!

Of course, it is no great revelation that the popularity of shiai at the end of the Edo period led to modern kendō. The case I want to make is that this interest in shiai goes back centuries further. We have shiai in schools dating back to the 16th century. Or, alternatively, older schools at least adapting to new fukuro-shinai technology. I would argue that where there are fukuro-shinai, there is almost certainly shiai. I personally think that they are a great tool for kata practice, but they are not a necessary one. Particularly in pre-bōgu days, they must have held a strong lure for those who wished to test their skills in relatively safe conditions.

Then, at turn of the 18th century, we have bōgu development. I think this indicates demand during at least the 17th century. And Maniwa Nen-ryū’s bōgu suggests alternative models that never caught on.

Of course, once these tools were created, development was rapid afterward. Therefore, rather than kata vs shiai being a distinction between classical and modern budō, I think that shiai should be part of the conceptual image of koryū. as much as two-man kata and battōjutsu. Not necessarily present in every extant school, but at one time pervasive enough to be the norm.

References

[1] 「薙刀（長刀）」から「なぎなた」へ Naginata kara naginata e “From Naginata (as weapon) to Naginata (as sport),” Kobe College Studies, 2006. (Link to PDF, article in Japanese, abstract in English)

 

 

 

 

 

Purchase Ellis Amdur’s Books On Budō & De-escalation of Aggression Here

Note: If any of my readers here find themselves grateful for access to the information in the essays published on this site, you can express your thanks in a way that would be helpful to me in turn. It would be most welcome if you were to purchase one or more of my books, be it those on martial traditions, tactical communication or fiction. In addition, if you have ever purchased any of my books, please write a review – the option is there on Amazon as well as Kobo or iBook. To be sure, positive reviews are valuable in their own right, but beyond that, the number of reviews bumps the algorithm within the online retailer, so that the book in question appears to more customers.